1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to the delivery of communication signals and the provision of media and communication services. In particular, the present invention relates to a system and method for delivering television services via a fiber optic network without being subject to right-of-way franchise fees.
2. Background of the Invention
The telecommunications industry has long recognized the many advantages that fiber optic cabling and transmission devices hold over other traditional terrestrial media, such as copper wire transmission systems. Fiber optic systems provide significantly higher bandwidth and greater performance and reliability than standard copper wire systems. For example, fiber optic systems can transmit up to 10 gigabits per second (Gbps), while copper lines transmit at typically less than 64 kilobits per second (Kbps). Optical fibers also require fewer repeaters over a given distance to keep a signal from deteriorating. Optical fibers are immune to electromagnetic interference (from lightning, nearby electric motors, and similar sources), to crosstalk from adjoining wires, and to signal egress. Optical fibers are also highly secure because of the difficulties involved in placing a physical tap on a line without detection and in intercepting and distinguishing a particular transmission among thousands of encrypted digital signals. Additionally, cables of optical fibers can be made smaller and lighter than conventional copper wire or coaxial tube cables, yet they can carry much more information, making them useful for transmitting large amounts of data between computers and for carrying bandwidth-intensive television pictures or many simultaneous telephone conversations. Due to the many advantages of fiber optic transmission, virtually all high-speed communications networks use fiber optic technology for long-haul transmission. Moreover, network providers (e.g., telephone service providers) have recently been focusing on end-to-end solutions that deliver fiber optic service from the provider to as close to the subscriber as possible. Of these end-to-end solutions, the preferred choice is Fiber-To-The-Home (FTTH), which provides a continuous fiber optic signal all the way into the subscriber premises. Less desirable, but less expensive, solutions involve hybrid transmission systems that bring fiber to a central location among a group of subscribers, and use other media to complete the last link to the subscribers, such as coaxial cable, twisted copper pair, or wireless transmission. These hybrid transmission systems are referred to as Fiber-To-The-Neighborhood (FTTN) or Fiber-To-The-Curb (FTTC). In the context of the present invention, any of these fiber optic transmission systems, including FTTH, FTTN, and FTTC, are referred to as Fiber-In-The-Loop (FITL) network architectures.
FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a conventional Fiber-In-The-Loop architecture 100 for the delivery of telephony and data services. As shown, the architecture 100 includes, at its broadest level, a central office terminal 102, a remote terminal 104, and optical network units 108.
Central office terminal 102 performs the switching functions of the network, routing calls to and from subscribers 112. Central office terminal 102 is in communication with remote terminal 104 through fiber optic cable 114. Fiber optic cable 114 is a main distribution cable that consists of many individual fiber optic strands. Fiber optic cable 114 runs, for example, along major roads, passing in front of housing subdivisions along those roads. Remote terminal 104 receives a strand of fiber optic cable 114 and splits the strand into two or more fiber optic strands, depending on the number of optical network units that remote terminal 104 serves. (Remote terminals are sometimes also referred to as distribution splitters.) In most instances, remote terminal 104 would be located at a point at which fiber optic service must be distributed from fiber optic cable 114 to a group of subscribers, such as in front of a housing subdivision. In the example of FIG. 1, remote terminal 104 splits a strand of fiber optic cable 114 into four fiber optic strands 116, which each serve a separate optical network unit 108.
Optical network units 108 receive fiber optic strands 116 from remote terminal 104 and further split strands 116 into individual drops 118. Optical network units 108 can be located among a group of homes, such that individual drops 118 are routed to each home. Alternately, for multiple dwelling units (MDUs), such as condominiums, dormitories, and apartment complexes, an optical network unit 108 can be located on the side of the multiple dwelling unit, at which a strand 116 is split into individual drops 118 and routed to the individual dwelling units. Optical network units 108 are sometimes also referred to as local terminals or outside plant cable terminals.
Thus, in this example, remote terminal 104 splits the fiber optic strand of cable 114 into four fiber optic strands 116 and routes strands 116 to four separate optical network units 108. Optical network units 108 further split the four fiber optic strands 116 into eight drops 118 routed to eight separate subscribers 112. Therefore, remote terminal 104 is a 1×4 splitter and optical network units 108 are 1×8 splitters, such that the strand separated from fiber optic cable 114 into remote terminal 104 supports a total of thirty-two subscribers. In typical installations, the fiber optic drops connecting optical network unit to subscribers are twisted copper pairs or coaxial cable. In such a case, the optical network units convert the fiber optic signal received through the incoming strand into an electronic signal suitable for transmission through the copper drop or coaxial cable to the subscribers. In the example of FIG. 1, optical network units 108 convert the fiber optic signals from strands 116 to electronic signals and split the electronic signals into eight separate drops 118 to eight subscribers 112.
Instead of electrical lines, in some installations, drops 118 are fiber optic drops. In this case, optical network unit 108 does not need to convert the fiber optic signal to an electronic signal, and instead simply splits the fiber optic strand into eight fiber optic strands to eight subscribers 112. The fiber optic signal is then converted to an electronic signal on the premises of subscribers 112 to facilitate connection with the electronic equipment of subscribers 112 (e.g., a telephone or computer).
As another alternative, in some installations, drops 118 are wireless connections. In this case, optical network units 108 convert the fiber optic signals of strands 116 into wireless signals, and transmit the wireless signal to each of subscribers 112. The wireless signals are converted to electronic signals on the premises of subscribers 112 to facilitate connection with the electronic equipment of subscribers 112.
By using a fiber optic platform such as the exemplary architecture shown in FIG. 1, telephone service providers can easily accommodate large volumes of telephony and data traffic, and still have plenty of excess bandwidth. Seeking to maximize the return on their investment in the fiber optic infrastructure, telephone service providers are eagerly exploring ways to capitalize on the excess bandwidth by providing subscribers with expanded and integrated services, including video. In competing with traditional cable television operators that use coaxial cable networks, telephone service providers can use their existing fiber optic networks to deliver superior signal quality and expanded channel options. Furthermore, telephone service providers can use their existing fiber optic networks to provide subscribers with complete communication and entertainment packages, covering all voice, data, and video needs. Referring to FIG. 1, in a typical deployment, the telephone service provider would provide video service by injecting a video signal from central office 102 into the strand of fiber optic cable 114, in addition to the telephony and data signals. The telephone service provider would distinguish the video signal from telephony and data signals by using different frequencies, i.e., different colors or wavelengths of the light spectrum. For example, telephony and data signals are usually transmitted over a 1310-nanometer wavelength while video signals are transmitted over a 1550-nanometer wavelength. This technique of combining and transmitting multiple signals simultaneously at different wavelengths through the same fiber optic strand is generally known as wavelength division multiplexing. The combined telephony, data, and video signal travels in a strand of fiber optic cable 114 to remote terminal 104, at which point the strand is split into separate strands 116 to optical network units 108. Optical network units 108 separate the combined signal into the individual telephony, data, and video signals. Optical network units 108 also further split the individual signals of strands 116 for delivery through drops 118 to subscribers 112. Thus, the telephone service provider is able to deliver video signals, in addition to telephony and data signals, using its existing fiber optic telephony platform. Some telephone service providers refer to this combined telephony, data, and video service platform as Integrated Fiber-In-The-Loop (IFITL). Although the IFITL platform gives telephone service providers the ability to easily provide voice, data, and video services, the telephone service providers often face municipal franchise fees that can make the services cost-prohibitive for subscribers. Specifically, to provide subscribers with both telephony and television services, telephone service providers frequently must pay separate public right-of-way franchise fees imposed by local governing authorities, such as city and county governments, for both telephone and television services. These franchise fees apply whenever the transmission lines of the service provider use a public right-of-way.
As an example, referring to FIG. 1, telephone service providers usually must cross a public right-of-way to deliver telephony service from central office terminal 102 to subscribers 112. This public right-of-way would typically fall somewhere between central office terminal 102 and optical network unit 108. That is, the public right-of-way would be somewhere between the private property of the telephone service provider and the private property of the subscriber. In this situation, the telephone service provider pays the local governing authority a telephone franchise fee for the right to lay fiber optic cable in and to transmit telephony signals through the public right-of-way. Typically, these franchise fees cover only the delivery of telephone service, and perhaps also data.
In addition to the telephone franchise fee, local governing authorities require video service providers to pay a video franchise fees to deliver video services across public rights-of-way. Thus, if a telephone service provider supplies television service via fiber optic cable running through public rights-of-way, the telephone service provider must also pay the video franchise fee, even if the telephone service provider is already paying a telephone franchise fee for providing telephony services through the same fiber optic cable. The additional video franchise fee can cost as much as 5% of the telephone service provider's revenue derived from video services, which is usually a cost passed directly to the subscriber in the form of higher subscription fees.
Telephone service providers generally find that they can compete with cable television operators because they both must pay the video franchise fee. However, both telephone service providers and cable television operators find it difficult to compete with satellite television operators because satellite television operators avoid video franchise fees altogether by installing satellite receiver dishes on private property. The satellite receiver dish connects to the subscriber's televisions within the bounds of the subscriber's property, and therefore never crosses or accesses a public right-of-way.
As another advantage, satellite television operators can deploy their services to isolated subscribers or groups of subscribers, taking advantage of high profit subscribers and avoiding capital investments in areas that might not provide many subscribers. In contrast to the flexible deployment scheme of satellite television operators, cable television providers often have exclusive service agreements with local governing authorities that require them to serve remote and low profit areas as a condition of their exclusivity.
Despite these advantages, satellite television provides an incomplete solution. In particular, the satellite television operators do not offer expanded and integrated services that satisfy all of a subscriber's telephony, data, and video needs.
Overall, to stay competitive with cable and satellite television operators, telephone service providers would prefer to use their existing fiber optic network infrastructure while avoiding the video franchise fees imposed by local governing authorities. Solving this problem would enable the telephone service providers to provide an attractive communications and entertainment package, meeting all of a subscriber's telephony, data, and video needs.